A tortious interference suit over contractual obligations arising under a pension plan was not completely preempted by ERISA, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
Homeowners could not pursue state-law claims for the alleged wrongful denial of a mortgage modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
A court-appointed expert was not immune from liability for allegedly failing to provide contracted-for services in a divorce case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a dismissal.
A seller suing for a buyer’s breach of a contract to sell real property was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach, New York’s highest court has ruled.
A recently filed malpractice suit seeks to hold the D.C. law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery liable for the alleged theft of a California inventor’s confidential information.
Published: January 7, 2013
Tags: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, deceptive trade practices, ethics, fraud, legal ethics, mass tort, negligence, referral fees, settlements, silicosis litigation
Defendants in a real estate development dispute could not introduce evidence of a post-breach crash in the real estate market to prove that the plaintiffs would not have profited from the parties’ contract, Maryland’s highest court has ruled in affirming judgment.
An expert could not testify that a plaintiff would have been “extraordinarily successful” had the defendant not breached the parties’ contract in support of a claim for over $1 billion in “lost profits” damages, the California Supreme Court has ruled.
Anyone who has gone to law school probably has some dim memory of being told that gambling contracts are generally unenforceable on public policy grounds.
But Tuesday a California court decided that a professional poker player just might have enforceable rights under an alleged oral agreement to stake another gambler.
An insurance company that provided foster care liability insurance did not owe a duty of good faith to a foster child who died from neglect, the 10th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.